Explain this to me.........

Yes its well known that well known facts are not factual. You asked for the 'well knowness' of my facts. I gave them. Next time ask a better question.

Yes, we agree Newton committed deliberate fraud.

Is it fair to call it "deliberate fraud" when he simply hypothesised explanations to explain his theory differing from observations.

But this is exactly what flat Earthers do today to explain things that do not fit their model.
Just take a look at Tom Bishop's Electromagnetic Acceleration where he postulates "bendy light" to ecplains sunrises, sunsets etc.

Did you have any other points to make?

Yes.

First, remember that Isaac Newton lived in a time when alchemy and the occult were widely accepted and to just him by modern standards is being a little harsh.

But none of this detracts from the proven accuracy of his Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.

Then scientists of today have discarded the ideas of alchemy and the occult.
It does, however, seem that the most knowledgable flat Earth Scientist among us still bases some of his theories (including gravitation) on the occult.

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 06:36:30 PM

Yes its well known that well known facts are not factual. You asked for the 'well knowness' of my facts. I gave them. Next time ask a better question.

Yes, we agree Newton committed deliberate fraud.

Is it fair to call it "deliberate fraud" when he simply hypothesised explanations to explain his theory differing from observations.

But this is exactly what flat Earthers do today to explain things that do not fit their model.
Just take a look at Tom Bishop's Electromagnetic Acceleration where he postulates "bendy light" to ecplains sunrises, sunsets etc.

Quote from: John Davis

Did you have any other points to make?

Yes.

First, remember that Isaac Newton lived in a time when alchemy and the occult were widely accepted and to just him by modern standards is being a little harsh.

But none of this detracts from the proven accuracy of his Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.

Then scientists of today have discarded the ideas of alchemy and the occult.
It does, however, seem that the most knowledgable flat Earth Scientist among us still bases some of his theories (including gravitation) on the occult.

I'm simply quoting his biography. Is it fair? Perhaps. I think it is. It's really not for me to judge.

You arguments seem contrived. Please, for the sake of your cause, and this is your last chance.

Reconsider your path. Nobody is banging on about alchemy and the occult but you. There is no one here looking for nessy or finding a bigfoot. You can italicize what you'd like, or say this or that is harsh. Modern standards would fair well with Newton - they have learned well from the master mathemagician.

Long ago when you came here, you sent me a message. I don't remember the sorts, but it was of the order of "do you really believe all this, is this legitimate etc". I told you it was legitimate because in discussion of these odd things we find truth. This truth is unobtainable, but here and within even the most ridiculous arguments. It's ever present.  In eris as much as logos. This is the only way we obtain it - not through orthodoxy which is stagnation, but through random and beautiful imaginative logic. Its not induction, its more than that. To those who have felt it, it has always been defined in ways that match religious experience.

It is what we all, all of us here and not just you, hold holy. We like the bits and logic and the reason. We know this is the Way, and that is why you are all here. Let's build that new Way together.

This is the order of "things", and its not teleologic, its complicated as balls.

And no its not fake dinosaurs, or religious literalism. I think we all know that by now. These silly arguments compel us, and the base instincts of man for a reason. Reason is not as reasonable as we might think.

Nobody is banging on about alchemy and the occult but you.

So you didn't even to bother reading who I was writing about.
It is Sandokhan who brings up "occult chemistry" in his debates! How are we supposed to answer that sort of thing?

markjo, read this thread again: the RE want an A-10 gravimeter.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The fact that most of their descriptions of MPAs were published several years before physicists even suspected that atoms had nuclei excludes the possibility of their fraudulent use of scientific knowledge about the composition of nuclei in terms of protons, neutrons and mass numbers because no such information existed then, Chadwick discovering the neutron in  1932, twenty-four years after the first edition of Occult Chemistry appeared.  No normal or alternative paranormal explanation of the correlation between modern physics and their ostensible 100-year old observations of subatomic particles appears to exist other than that  Besant and Leadbeater genuinely described aspects of the microscopic world by means of ESP, albeit one disturbed by the act of paranormal observation.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf

So all this information from occult chemistry and physics cones fro "ESP, albeit one disturbed by the act of paranormal observation" - to each his own!

. . . . .
So, if we could describe a microscopic standing wave pattern that appeared particle-like and incorporated a vortex within its structure, we might have the basis for a theory that could unite all the current variants in modern physics. Figure 1 appears to meet these criteria – it is a drawing of a subatomic particle reproduced from Occult Chemistry by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant, which was first published in 1909, although a similar diagram was published in a journal in 1895. Leadbeater explains that each subatomic particle is composed of ten loops which circulate energy from higher dimensions. Back in 1895, he knew that physical matter was composed from "strings" – 10 years before Einstein's theory of relativity and 80 years before string theory.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . 
Figure 7 depicts the subatomic structure of a hydrogen atom (in the 1:3 gaseous phase) and its decomposition through four etheric phases:

•The 1:4-molecules are baryons.
•The large 1:5-molecules are unstable mesons.
•The small 1:5-molecules and the 1:6-phase molecules are quarks.
•The 1:7-atoms (or 1-atoms) are preons.
Leadbeater did not state what the membranes surrounding the molecular structures are composed of, but they are probably 2-atoms or 3-atoms.



Figures 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 are extracted from Occult Chemistry by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant. The book depicts the subatomic structure of every element in the periodic table from Hydrogen to Uranium, including various isotopes (atoms with the same atomic number but different mass numbers). Leadbeater knew that isotopes existed in 1907 – five years before conventional science discovered them.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I'll just give a link to these recent ones:
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003 « Message by sandokhan on September 07, 2019, 05:04:17 AM »

Flat Earth General / Re: Strongest FE Evidence « Message by sandokhan on December 04, 2019, 11:29:35 PM »

Flat Earth General / Re: Strongest FE Evidence « Message by sandokhan on December 04, 2019, 11:31:17 PM »

And Sandokhan is the one accusing others of posting pseudoscientific rubbish - not his words, I won't stoop that low.

Yes its well known that well known facts are not factual.

Really?   Please give me an example of a well known fact which is actually not factual.  Because surely if it is well known that a well known fact is not actually factual then that makes it by definition not a well know fact?

You mentioned about figures such as those quoted in the BAA handbook as suiting only the model they refer to.  Can you point us towards a flat Earth model which has figures quoted to the same level of accuracy?  In fact can you point us towards a single FE model which all FE believers accept?  No of course you can't because no such single model exists. You are all too busy arguing among yourselves about which one to adopt.

You go on about Einstein and Newton.  Well it is a 'well known fact' that neither of them were right all the time.  Of course they weren't because they were human beings and therefore not infallible to making mistakes and errors.  Even scientists make mistakes. But at least they are willing to recognise and accept they have made a mistake and do something about it. I have never yet seen an instance when a FE believer has held their hands up and said.. 'actually I could be wrong..'.  What is it like to be super human and to be right all the time?

You really are asking me for a citation that facts aren't facts? How daft can you be.

What are you trying to bangin' on about. I'm happy to help; its what I'm here for, but really? The point was that at least they wiped their own fucking ass.

The anger in my post is directed to all of you that don't wipe your own ass. Those that can't be bothered to fuck off with their own idea. Or at least stay home and defend that one. Yet you came here. You english bastards.

Your anger it seems is just aimed at anyone who holds a different view to your own.  That's the purpose of debates isn't it?  In a debate people should be allowed to have and to voice different views without expecting to have insults fired at them.  If you need to resort to that sort of language to get your opinion over and fire insults off at anyone who has the audacity to express a different view to yours then AR is the place for that surely.

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 06:36:30 PM

Yes its well known that well known facts are not factual. You asked for the 'well knowness' of my facts. I gave them. Next time ask a better question.

Yes, we agree Newton committed deliberate fraud.

Is it fair to call it "deliberate fraud" when he simply hypothesised explanations to explain his theory differing from observations.

But this is exactly what flat Earthers do today to explain things that do not fit their model.
Just take a look at Tom Bishop's Electromagnetic Acceleration where he postulates "bendy light" to ecplains sunrises, sunsets etc.

Quote from: John Davis

Did you have any other points to make?

Yes.

First, remember that Isaac Newton lived in a time when alchemy and the occult were widely accepted and to just him by modern standards is being a little harsh.

But none of this detracts from the proven accuracy of his Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.

Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?

Then scientists of today have discarded the ideas of alchemy and the occult.
It does, however, seem that the most knowledgable flat Earth Scientist among us still bases some of his theories (including gravitation) on the occult.

You admit Newton did this, want us to accept his science (us depending strictly on your ability to judge what is correct and incorrect), yet decry others who do?

Seems rather odd...

Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?

Why do you ignore what has been explained to you so many times before?

Computer models do exist.
What doesn't (at least not to my knowledge) are to-scale CGI models because you wouldn't be able to see anything in them anyway due to the sizes involved.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 28, 2020, 07:20:50 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 06:36:30 PM

Did you have any other points to make?

Yes.

First, remember that Isaac Newton lived in a time when alchemy and the occult were widely accepted and to just him by modern standards is being a little harsh.

But none of this detracts from the proven accuracy of his Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.

Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?

They have, numerous times.
The more advanced of these simulations also incorporate the gravitational quadripole moment of non-spherical objects, Einstein's GR and other slight effects.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 28, 2020, 07:20:50 PM

Then scientists of today have discarded the ideas of alchemy and the occult.
It does, however, seem that the most knowledgable flat Earth Scientist among us still bases some of his theories (including gravitation) on the occult.

You admit Newton did this, want us to accept his science (us depending strictly on your ability to judge what is correct and incorrect), yet decry others who do?

Seems rather odd...

Not odd at all because:

• Nobody, other than YOU said that "that the most knowledgable flat Earth Scientist among us still bases some of his theories (including gravitation) on the occult"!
  
  
• The Newtonian Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation were based on a great deal experimental work by Galileo, Robert Hooke, Isaac Newton and others, which is why they are scientific Laws and not scientific Theories.
  Newton, himself, was mystified as to the cause of this action at a distance but he never denied their validity.
  
  The Newtonian Laws have been verified by innumerable experimental observations on Earth and in the motions of the moons and planets.
  
  These Laws were found to show a slight anomaly in the case of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit.
  The anomaly was only 43 arcseconds per century yet "This anomalous rate of precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit was . . . recognized in 1859 as a problem in celestial mechanics, by Urbain Le Verrier".
  
  This tiny anomaly in Newtonian Mechanics was one of the things that lead to Einstein's GR.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 28, 2020, 07:20:50 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 06:36:30 PM

Yes its well known that well known facts are not factual. You asked for the 'well knowness' of my facts. I gave them. Next time ask a better question.

Yes, we agree Newton committed deliberate fraud.

Is it fair to call it "deliberate fraud" when he simply hypothesised explanations to explain his theory differing from observations.

But this is exactly what flat Earthers do today to explain things that do not fit their model.
Just take a look at Tom Bishop's Electromagnetic Acceleration where he postulates "bendy light" to ecplains sunrises, sunsets etc.

Quote from: John Davis

Did you have any other points to make?

Yes.

First, remember that Isaac Newton lived in a time when alchemy and the occult were widely accepted and to just him by modern standards is being a little harsh.

But none of this detracts from the proven accuracy of his Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation.

Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 28, 2020, 07:20:50 PM

Then scientists of today have discarded the ideas of alchemy and the occult.
It does, however, seem that the most knowledgable flat Earth Scientist among us still bases some of his theories (including gravitation) on the occult.

You admit Newton did this, want us to accept his science (us depending strictly on your ability to judge what is correct and incorrect), yet decry others who do?

Seems rather odd...

Now I’m not a great reader of the bible but it does have some pretty good quotes like this from the King James Version that I think applies here:-

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Flat earthers like yourself love to nit pick away at the tiniest discrepancies in conventional theory while ignoring the gaping holes all over your own ill  thought out random individual ideas. The more one looks into flat earth belief what becomes very clear is that rather than there being one overarching concept every flat earther appears to have their own version. The bottom line is you flat earthers can’t even agree among yourself. Ask them a simple question, like the one I asked John Davis,on how far the moon is from earth and how big is it  and all you will get is evasion. The funny thing is he like others don’t even agree with what they have on the flat earth wiki, as it’s not their own flat earth wiki! The real question you should be asking is what the hell do flat earth believers believe?

Ps.
This is the reason why flat earthers love to nit pick away at conventional science as they haven’t a clue about what they actually believe and why they believe it and are too scared to actually spend time scrutinising their own beliefs.

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2020, 05:35:50 AM

Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?

Why do you ignore what has been explained to you so many times before?

Computer models do exist.
What doesn't (at least not to my knowledge) are to-scale CGI models because you wouldn't be able to see anything in them anyway due to the sizes involved.

Yeah, the ones I see like the one Hamzah uses in his icon, shows a Solar System in motion through the galaxy.

Unfortunately, it does not depict the Solar System in motion throughout the galaxy using Newton's laws or universal gravitation.

So, the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus, even according to you.

Why don't we have one using Newton's laws?

Because, according to you, even the ones we do have (not to scale) are just fine...even though not valid science...according to Newton...

You are so in love with hocus pocus, abracadabra, and allahkazaam...LOL!!!

And you guys have the nerve to call Sandokhan an alchemist...

Now I’m not a great reader of the bible...

That, among other things...but, I will try not to nitpick...

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Flat earthers like yourself love to nit pick away...

Hey, not fair...I just wrote I will not nitpick...

...at the tiniest discrepancies in conventional theory while ignoring the gaping holes all over your own ill  thought out random individual ideas.

Like what?

The ones you label as not your individual ideas...

By the way, how has that been working out for you?

The more one looks into flat earth belief what becomes very clear is that rather than there being one overarching concept every flat earther appears to have their own version. The bottom line is you flat earthers can’t even agree among yourself. Ask them a simple question, like the one I asked John Davis,on how far the moon is from earth and how big is it  and all you will get is evasion. The funny thing is he like others don’t even agree with what they have on the flat earth wiki, as it’s not their own flat earth wiki! The real question you should be asking is what the hell do flat earth believers believe?

Ps.
This is the reason why flat earthers love to nit pick away at conventional science as they haven’t a clue about what they actually believe and why they believe it and are too scared to actually spend time scrutinising their own beliefs.

You just like to fall in lock step...nothing wrong with that boring, dull life...have at it.

Last I checked, one of your threads was in flames...better to go clean that one up, keeping in line with your poor reading of the bible and all...

Quote from: JackBlack on March 02, 2020, 12:36:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2020, 05:35:50 AM

Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?

Why do you ignore what has been explained to you so many times before?

Computer models do exist.
What doesn't (at least not to my knowledge) are to-scale CGI models because you wouldn't be able to see anything in them anyway due to the sizes involved.

Yeah, the ones I see like the one Hamzah uses in his icon, shows a Solar System in motion through the galaxy.

Nobody, but YOU, mentioned "the one Hamzah uses in his icon" so it is disingenuous in the extreme to go on and on about that!

Unfortunately, it does not depict the Solar System in motion throughout the galaxy using Newton's laws or universal gravitation.

So, the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus, even according to you.

Stop accusing others of what you wrote! You said "the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus" and nobody else!

Why don't we have one using Newton's laws?

Because, according to you, even the ones we do have (not to scale) are just fine...even though not valid science...according to Newton...

There are numerous such simulations ranging from ones that you can run on your home computer to high precision ones needing extremely fast computers to get the speed and precision necessary.

You are so in love with hocus pocus, abracadabra, and allahkazaam...LOL!!!

You do so love to build your straw-men than burn them down - unfortunately for you, it proves nothing, is useless and dishonest!

And you guys have the nerve to call Sandokhan an alchemist...

That's right, because he bases much of his current theories on occult chemistry, etc and even writes this sort of thing:

Quote from: RyanTG on June 15, 2013, 03:15:37 AM

There is a reptilian blood line.

As for the lizard thread, all of you now know exactly what is going on: the reptilian bloodline descendants are the ones who invented the round earth theory, who falsified the entire history prior to 1825 AD, and who currently run NASA.

Really?  "reptilian bloodline descendants who currently run NASA"

Why did you totally ignore Explain this to me......... « Reply #42 on: Today at 08:27:55 AM »?

Here is a "high precision solar system simulator that calculates the gravitational interactions between all astronomical bodies":

This is not open source but is intended for somewhat more serious applications.
Though it would hardly be up to the standard needed by those working on predicting planetary positions for space missions, etc:

Quote

AstroGrav Astronomy Software
AstroGrav for Windows and Mac is a full-featured, high precision solar system simulator that calculates the gravitational interactions between all astronomical bodies, so that the motions of asteroids and comets are simulated much more accurately than with planetarium applications. The effects of general relativity and radiation pressure can be taken into account, and superb interactive 3D viewing allows you to easily rotate and zoom your view while the solar system evolves.

Multi-Purpose
Because it calculates the motions of bodies from their gravitational interactions, AstroGrav is not restricted to just the solar system. Any situation in which gravity is the only significant force can be simulated, and the illustrative sample files that are included with AstroGrav include many examples. Systems that can be simulated include:

• Exoplanet systems
• Protoplanets that evolve into planetary systems
• Rubble piles and their interactions with massive bodies
• Complex star systems, including colliding globular clusters
• Projectiles and bouncing balls

But that is just one that runs on a PC, not a professional one that astronomers and those working on orbital mechanics might use for there final planning.

Quote from: totallackey on March 03, 2020, 03:59:51 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 02, 2020, 12:36:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2020, 05:35:50 AM

Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?

Why do you ignore what has been explained to you so many times before?

Computer models do exist.
What doesn't (at least not to my knowledge) are to-scale CGI models because you wouldn't be able to see anything in them anyway due to the sizes involved.

Yeah, the ones I see like the one Hamzah uses in his icon, shows a Solar System in motion through the galaxy.

Nobody, but YOU, mentioned "the one Hamzah uses in his icon" so it is disingenuous in the extreme to go on and on about that!

No it's not.

Here, let me post it here for you...

Quote from: totallackey

Unfortunately, it does not depict the Solar System in motion throughout the galaxy using Newton's laws or universal gravitation.

So, the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus, even according to you.

Stop accusing others of what you wrote! You said "the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus" and nobody else!

Are we to take it you subscribe to the idea the model above is legit?

It depicts a Solar System behaving according to Newton's Laws?

Quote from: totallackey

Why don't we have one using Newton's laws?

Because, according to you, even the ones we do have (not to scale) are just fine...even though not valid science...according to Newton...

There are numerous such simulations ranging from ones that you can run on your home computer to high precision ones needing extremely fast computers to get the speed and precision necessary.

No there isn't.

Post a link to one that will render a Solar System in motion.

I dare you.

Quote from: totallackey

You are so in love with hocus pocus, abracadabra, and allahkazaam...LOL!!!

You do so love to build your straw-men than burn them down - unfortunately for you, it proves nothing, is useless and dishonest!

Quote from: totallackey

And you guys have the nerve to call Sandokhan an alchemist...

That's right, because he bases much of his current theories on occult chemistry, etc and even writes this sort of thing:

Quote from: sandokhan on June 17, 2013, 05:23:00 AM

Quote from: RyanTG on June 15, 2013, 03:15:37 AM

There is a reptilian blood line.

As for the lizard thread, all of you now know exactly what is going on: the reptilian bloodline descendants are the ones who invented the round earth theory, who falsified the entire history prior to 1825 AD, and who currently run NASA.

Really?  "reptilian bloodline descendants who currently run NASA"

Why did you totally ignore Explain this to me......... « Reply #42 on: Today at 08:27:55 AM »?

Here is a "high precision solar system simulator that calculates the gravitational interactions between all astronomical bodies":

Quote from: rabinoz on August 11, 2019, 04:40:45 AM

This is not open source but is intended for somewhat more serious applications.
Though it would hardly be up to the standard needed by those working on predicting planetary positions for space missions, etc:

Quote

AstroGrav Astronomy Software
AstroGrav for Windows and Mac is a full-featured, high precision solar system simulator that calculates the gravitational interactions between all astronomical bodies, so that the motions of asteroids and comets are simulated much more accurately than with planetarium applications. The effects of general relativity and radiation pressure can be taken into account, and superb interactive 3D viewing allows you to easily rotate and zoom your view while the solar system evolves.

Multi-Purpose
Because it calculates the motions of bodies from their gravitational interactions, AstroGrav is not restricted to just the solar system. Any situation in which gravity is the only significant force can be simulated, and the illustrative sample files that are included with AstroGrav include many examples. Systems that can be simulated include:

• Exoplanet systems
• Protoplanets that evolve into planetary systems
• Rubble piles and their interactions with massive bodies
• Complex star systems, including colliding globular clusters
• Projectiles and bouncing balls

But that is just one that runs on a PC, not a professional one that astronomers and those working on orbital mechanics might use for there final planning.

Bogus.

Doesn't depict the Solar System in motion.

Doesn't use the math of Newton, or GR, or even Keplar.

Dirty alchemist.

Where is that ideal rope...?

Isn't that how we deal with alchemists round here?

Quote from: rabinoz on March 03, 2020, 04:42:45 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 03, 2020, 03:59:51 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 02, 2020, 12:36:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2020, 05:35:50 AM

Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?

Why do you ignore what has been explained to you so many times before?

Computer models do exist.
What doesn't (at least not to my knowledge) are to-scale CGI models because you wouldn't be able to see anything in them anyway due to the sizes involved.

Yeah, the ones I see like the one Hamzah uses in his icon, shows a Solar System in motion through the galaxy.

Nobody, but YOU, mentioned "the one Hamzah uses in his icon" so it is disingenuous in the extreme to go on and on about that!

No it's not.

Here, let me post it here for you...

Quote from: rabinoz on March 03, 2020, 04:42:45 AM

Quote from: totallackey

Unfortunately, it does not depict the Solar System in motion throughout the galaxy using Newton's laws or universal gravitation.

So, the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus, even according to you.

Stop accusing others of what you wrote! You said "the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus" and nobody else!

Are we to take it you subscribe to the idea the model above is legit?

No one in this thread claimed that the depiction in Hamzah's signature was a simulation based on Newton's Laws!

I have given you a couple of examples of those that do.

Quote from: totallackey on March 03, 2020, 04:59:22 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 03, 2020, 04:42:45 AM

Quote from: totallackey on March 03, 2020, 03:59:51 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on March 02, 2020, 12:36:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2020, 05:35:50 AM

Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?

Why do you ignore what has been explained to you so many times before?

Computer models do exist.
What doesn't (at least not to my knowledge) are to-scale CGI models because you wouldn't be able to see anything in them anyway due to the sizes involved.

Yeah, the ones I see like the one Hamzah uses in his icon, shows a Solar System in motion through the galaxy.

Nobody, but YOU, mentioned "the one Hamzah uses in his icon" so it is disingenuous in the extreme to go on and on about that!

No it's not.

Here, let me post it here for you...

Quote from: rabinoz on March 03, 2020, 04:42:45 AM

Quote from: totallackey

Unfortunately, it does not depict the Solar System in motion throughout the galaxy using Newton's laws or universal gravitation.

So, the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus, even according to you.

Stop accusing others of what you wrote! You said "the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus" and nobody else!

Are we to take it you subscribe to the idea the model above is legit?

No one in this thread claimed that the depiction in Hamzah's signature was a simulation based on Newton's Laws!

I have given you a couple of examples of those that do.

No, you haven't.

Because if they did, we would be able to see it in this thread.

You would post it.

All you did was claim you could do it.

But you can't.

Post a link to one that will render a Solar System in motion.

OK here's one...

https://theskylive.com/3dsolarsystem

You can set the date, drag to change the orientation and set the rate of animation. Just click on the animate tickbox to get things moving.

The angle on the sky between the north celestial pole and the north galactic pole is 63 degrees.

Quote

Post a link to one that will render a Solar System in motion.

OK here's one...

https://theskylive.com/3dsolarsystem

Ok, no it's not...

Does that show the sun in motion, all the planets dutifully in tow, while simultaneously orbiting the sun?

No...it doesn't.

Try again...

That model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein...

What is the angle between the north celestial pole and the north galactic pole?  I will give you a clue, the north galactic pole is in the constellation of Coma Berenices.  What does that tell you about the actual motion of the planets in relation to the galactic plane? The Sun orbits the Galaxy every 230 million years or so.

Does that show the sun in motion, all the planets dutifully in tow, while simultaneously orbiting the sun?

It certainly show the planets in motion around the Sun. No doubt about that!

If you want a link that backs up what is shown in the animation previous posted, here is one...

https://www.space.com/3801-solar-system-sails-sideways-milky.html

That model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein...

Where does it say it doesn't?

Now setting aside for the moment whose 'laws' the planets are or are not 'obeying' , you show me some links which evidence that none of this is true. 

Quote from: JackBlack on March 02, 2020, 12:36:30 PM

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2020, 05:35:50 AM

Why haven't the computer scientists used his laws of motion and universal gravitation to create a CGI model of the solar system in motion?

Why do you ignore what has been explained to you so many times before?

Computer models do exist.
What doesn't (at least not to my knowledge) are to-scale CGI models because you wouldn't be able to see anything in them anyway due to the sizes involved.

Yeah, the ones I see like the one Hamzah uses in his icon, shows a Solar System in motion through the galaxy.

Unfortunately, it does not depict the Solar System in motion throughout the galaxy using Newton's laws or universal gravitation.

So, the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus, even according to you.

Why don't we have one using Newton's laws?

Because, according to you, even the ones we do have (not to scale) are just fine...even though not valid science...according to Newton...

You are so in love with hocus pocus, abracadabra, and allahkazaam...LOL!!!

And you guys have the nerve to call Sandokhan an alchemist...

Please note Hamzah’s avatar is from a debunked video/model.

Please note Hamzah’s avatar is from a debunked video/model.

Please post a non-debunked one.

One that shows the solar system traipsing about the galaxy...

One that uses Newton's laws and universal gravitation and Kepler and Einstein...you know?

The "all-sciency" one...

LOL!!!

What is the angle between the north celestial pole and the north galactic pole?  I will give you a clue, the north galactic pole is in the constellation of Coma Berenices.  What does that tell you about the actual motion of the planets in relation to the galactic plane? The Sun orbits the Galaxy every 230 million years or so.

Who cares?

Quote

Does that show the sun in motion, all the planets dutifully in tow, while simultaneously orbiting the sun?

It certainly show the planets in motion around the Sun. No doubt about that!

If it doesn't show the sun in motion, then it does not show the full motion of the planets.

If you want a link that backs up what is shown in the animation previous posted, here is one...

https://www.space.com/3801-solar-system-sails-sideways-milky.html

Who cares?

Quote

That model doesn't even use math by Newton/Keplar/Einstein...

Where does it say it doesn't?

It says it doesn't when it doesn't say it does.

Now setting aside for the moment whose 'laws' the planets are or are not 'obeying' , you show me some links which evidence that none of this is true.

Stop the spam...

Either pony up a model, like Hamzah's (but legitimate) that uses the laws of Fig Newton, the math of Kepler, and GR, or just admit you are also lost in the sea of lies promoted by today's science...

You better sit this one out...

Quote from: sokarul on March 03, 2020, 06:11:51 AM

Please note Hamzah’s avatar is from a debunked video/model.

Please post a non-debunked one.

One that shows the solar system traipsing about the galaxy...

One that uses Newton's laws and universal gravitation and Kepler and Einstein...you know?

The "all-sciency" one...

LOL!!!

I’m referring to this.

https://www.universetoday.com/107322/is-the-solar-system-really-a-vortex/



celestia is a good working model.

Quote from: totallackey on March 03, 2020, 08:12:13 AM

Quote from: sokarul on March 03, 2020, 06:11:51 AM

Please note Hamzah’s avatar is from a debunked video/model.

Please post a non-debunked one.

One that shows the solar system traipsing about the galaxy...

One that uses Newton's laws and universal gravitation and Kepler and Einstein...you know?

The "all-sciency" one...

LOL!!!

I’m referring to this.

https://www.universetoday.com/107322/is-the-solar-system-really-a-vortex/



celestia is a good working model.

Celestia doesn't show the solar system in motion.

Please pay attention.

Why does the model need to move?

Yeah, the ones I see like the one Hamzah uses in his icon, shows a Solar System in motion through the galaxy.
Unfortunately, it does not depict the Solar System in motion throughout the galaxy using Newton's laws or universal gravitation.
So, the models we do have depicting Solar System motion are bogus, even according to you.
Why don't we have one using Newton's laws?

Just because one that you have seen doesn't mean we don't have any that do.
That doesn't mean all are bogus.

I didn't object to models using Newton's laws (or more accurate versions).
I objected to the to-scale part, as it wouldn't let you see anything.
If you tried to put a to-scale model of the solar system, just out to Neptune, on a 4K screen, the sun would be less than a pixel.
If you had a to-scale model like that, you wouldn't see anything.

You know this.
Yet you keep complaining.

Doesn't depict the Solar System in motion.
Doesn't use the math of Newton, or GR, or even Keplar.

Did you even bother reading what it says?
It seems now you are just in pathetic denial mode where even if something indicates it does use gravity, you will just dismiss it as not using it.